Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development The model of transition management René Kemp Presentation for School of Global Governance, 13 march 2008, Maastricht

In the past decades we have seen a move from government to governance in the sense that authority and control of social relations is increasingly exercised through quasi- and non-government entities than formal governments and government institutions and through a reliance on self-regulation From government to governance

Definitions of Governance Manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development– World Bank A broader notion than government, involving interaction between the formal institutions and those in civil society. Governance refers to a process whereby elements in society wield power, authority and influence and enact policies and decisions concerning public life and social upliftment. – British Council

The structured ways and means in which the divergent preferences of inter-dependent actors are translated into policy choices to allocate values, so that the plurality of interests is transformed into co- ordinated action and the compliance of actors is achieved (Eising and Kohler-Koch, 2000, p.5) A political science definition

Governance is everywhere In local government In environmental policies Water management In innovation policy In EU policy In companies (corporate governance about reporting, dealing with shareholder issues,..)

We have governance Wherever there is a common good issue requiring collective action that is not dealt with in an authoritarian manner by government Which brings into play issues of defining the issue, allocating responsibilities and resources, defining policies/action, the implementation of (policy) action and enforcement of rules

What does governance do? Governance structures organize negotiation processes, set standards, perform allocative functions, monitor compliance, reduce conflict, and resolve disputes among actors (Eden and Hampson 1997: 362) Governance involves political and managerial elements

European Commission’s Principles of Good Governance Openness Participation Accountability Effectiveness Coherence Proportionality and subsidiarity

Different views of sustainable development It is seen variously as  something ecological or broader (wellbeing, happiness, justice)  something that can be defined (for instance when you talk about sustainable housing or sustainable technologies) and managed and something that never can be reached

sustainability “refers to a process and a standard — and not to an end state—each generation must take up the challenge anew, determining in what directions their development objectives lie, what constitutes the boundaries of the environmentally possible and the environmentally desirable, and what is their understanding of the requirements of social justice” (Meadowcroft 1997, p. 37). This is a reflexive view which may or may not be adhered too in society

The Brundtland definition of SD “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987)

Governance for sustainable development is About how existing governance arrangements (in local government, water management, etc.) deal with sustainable development issues And how they may be changed to foster sustainable development goals or concerns

Sustainable development is difficult for policy makers because It is an elusive concept and beyond the reach of single organizations. There is no consensus on what exactly should be ‘sustained’ (certain environmental qualities, economic growth, certain capabilities) There are different ideas of what sustainable development amounts to in various sectors (cleaner cars or less automobility?) Whatever it is, it can not be achieved in the short- term, and without some effort

We have sustainable development as perspective for thinking and a perspective for action Governance comes into play at both levels … through existing systems of governance (which are multiple)

Different types of GoSD Source: van Zeijl et al, 2008

The Dutch “transition approach” Led by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (responsible for business, energy and innovation) Goal: to achieve a transition to a low-carbon economy In a bottom-up, top-down manner moving from programmes & experiments to alternative systems of energy, agriculture and mobility

Top-down elements 30 transition paths 6 platforms for energy transition Government support for experiments (35 million euro) Policy change

Official platforms Green resources Sustainable mobility Sustainable electricity supply New gas Built environment Chain efficiency

Selected transition paths

Bottom-up elements Business alliances Experiments Identification of barriers / opportunities informing private action and policy

How serious is all this? Platform for “green resources” (one of official 6 platforms) 5 transition paths: synthetic natural gas, sustainable chemistry, chains for biomass import, biomass production & coproduction 60 million euro for biofuels In % blending requirement for gasoline and diesel Certification system (criteria for sustainable biofuels)

Why is NL interested in biomass?  Because NL is a gas country (biomass can be turned into a gas)  Because agriculture business and the logistic sector (Rotterdam harbour) are interested in it  Because the chemical industry thinks it may obtain an competitive edge from knowledge-intensive, green materials  Because ECN is a world leader in biomass gassification  Because of EU obligation for biofuels

2050 Biomass 20-40% of primary energy supply‘Vision’ 2020 ‘Strategic goals’ 10-15% in power prod.15-20% in traffic à 3 % ‘Transition Paths’ C. Biofuels B. Pyrolysis A. Gasification Expv EOS Exp EOS : experiments: R&D The biomass vision

The philosophy behind TM The use of multiple visions (because visions create better world together rather than apart) as a top-down element of guidance The use of societal experiments as a bottom–up mechanism Adaptive portfolios: each option has to prove its worth Policy orientation to system innovation and transitions Government as a facilitator of change instead of a steerer

Transition Management bifocal instead of myopic Political margins for change State of development of solutions Societal goals Sustainability visions Transition management: oriented towards long- term sustainability goals and visions, iterative and reflexive (bifocal) Existing policy process: short-term goals (myopic)

Circular elements Evaluating, monitoring and learning Developing sustainability visions and transition- agendas Organising multi-actor networks Mobilizing actors and executing projects and experiments Source: Loorbach (2004)  Portfolio of official transition paths  Transition experiments  Instrument choices  Policy coordination

The use of science and knowledge Science, technology and innovation more oriented towards transition goals Visioning Sustainability assessment Discussions about transition management

Transition management is a reflexive form of steering building on business interests, and societal normative concerns (to reduce emissions, create a better world) in an adaptive, forward looking manner (reflexive governance) Altering the ways in which things are organised (de-alignment and re-alignment)

TM exploits The business interest in innovation The societal interest in growth and well-being The government interest in both In a reflexive manner (avoiding the pitfalls of planning and the myopia of markets)

Members of platform “green resources” Paul Hamm (formerly at DSM, chair) Dhr. G.G. Bemer (Koninklijke Nedalco) Dhr. A. van den Biggelaar (Stichting Natuur en Milieu) Mevr.dr.ir. M.J.P. Botman (Ministerie van Economische Zaken) Prof.dr. A. Bruggink (NWO-ACTS / Universiteit Nijmegen / DSM) Ir. K.W. Kwant (SenterNovem) Dhr. P. Lednor (Shell Global Solutions) Dr. Peter M. Bruinenberg (AVEBE) Prof.dr. E.M. Meijer (Unilever) Prof.dr. J.P.M. Sanders (Agrotechnology & Food Innovations) Prof.dr. W.P.M. van Swaaij (Universiteit Twente) Prof.dr. H. Veringa (ECN) Dr. J. Vanhemelrijck (EuropaBio) Prof.dr.ir. L.A.M. van der Wielen (Technische Universiteit Delft)

IncrementalismTM as a model of reflexive governance Planning Key actorsPrivate and public actors Bureaucrats and experts Steering philosophy Partisan mutual adaptation Modulation of developments to collectively chosen goals, government is facilitator & mediator Hierarchy Mechanism for coordination Markets and emergent institutionalisation Markets, network management, institutionalisation (both designed and emergent) Hierarchy (top- down) Role for anticipation Limited (no long- term goals) Dynamic anticipation of desired futures as basis for interaction Future is anticipated and implemented Type of learning First-order: learning about quick fixes for remedying immediate ills Second-order and first- order (rethink following problem structuring) First-order (instrumental)

IncrementalismTM as a model of reflexive governance Planning Degree of adaptivity AdaptiveHighly adaptive thanks to especially created adaptive capacity Hardly adaptive Role for strategy and plans Limited roleImportant role for goals and strategic experiments for exploring social trajectories, as apart of adaptive programmes for system innovation. Plans with steps Interest mediation/ conflict resolution Individual gains for everyone Rewards for innovators, phase out of non-sustainable practices through markets and politics Little mediation (implementation and enforcement) Type of change that is sought Incremental, non- disruptive change System innovation and system improvement Predetermined outcome

Newspaper attention for transitions in the Netherlands